Lost to a pusher.
- Thread starter DanFuller
- Start date
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
That is an excellent point [no pun intended]! On the occasions when I played with a weaker partner, I often wished the same thing: just get the ball in and give me a chance to poach. If he never gets it in, I have no chance. Now, in fairness to my partner, sometimes he was just having an off day; no shame in that. But what irks me is when he thinks he's playing Wii Tennis and takes massive cuts at the ball or goes for low % shots…over and over again.
2 matches last year highlight what you're talking about: the one we won, my partner was solid and didn't try for too much but he made very few errors, giving me the chance to take over the net. The one we lost, my partner was missing his RoS or going for too much in the 1-up/1-back scenario and I didn't get many chances [I should have been more aggressive].
Pushing is less effective in doubles than singles. It takes away the ability for the pusher to wear out the opponent and makes the margins for pushing smaller. Anything short and the ball is going to be put in the back of his partner at the net.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think that was MathGeek's point. I think his point was that a partner that makes a lot of errors will contribute heavily to a loss so if he adopted more of a pusher style and reduced his errors, the chances for a win would go up considerably. The advantage of pushing in doubles isn't to wear down the opponent but to not make so many mistakes.
Do I have that right, Math?
Would this be more effective than if he kept his current style and reduced his errors?
Thamel90
Rookie
A doubles "pusher" is basically a frequent lobber/chop shotter. They're also pretty comfortable at net but don't necessarily put points away quickly up there. For their comparative skill level/shotmaking ability, they are some of the best rated players out there, and some of the smartest, too. My dad is a semi-pusher, and one of his good friends is a full on one, at least by the definition I laid out. When you pair them together, good god. They do really well in 4.0 55 & over doubles
MathGeek
Hall of Fame
Right. If you are losing more than half your points to unforced errors, you are sunk before you even have a chance. The first thing you need to do to win a point is not to lose it quickly to an unforced error.
MathGeek
Hall of Fame
Reducing one's errors requires a commitment to practice a lot between matches. A lot of practice will usually yield better results than little or no practice. Whether one should practice pushing or try and adopt "real tennis" skills is a matter up to the individual player and likely depends on the time and resources they want to expend.
My point is more about how a doubles partner should play with whatever skill set one brings to the match. If attempting to hit shots that look like "real tennis" is causing an unduly high number of unforced errors, one should quickly adapt one's style of play to stay in points longer and give the net player a chance to win the point and/or give the other side a longer chance to lose the point with their own unforced error.
I've had too many doubles partners look at matches for a chance to refine and show off their "real tennis" skills. I'd rather stay in points long enough to get some exercise and have a chance at winning.
What you really mean is that you believe pushers are better tennis players than players that hit with proper strokes.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Quite possibly. But I got the impression from Math's post that his partners weren't just going to start becoming less error-prone because Math told them to. But if he had a pusher for a partner, that guy already knows how to keep the ball in play.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
There you go again, telling other people what they meant when it may not at all be what they meant.
That's not how I interpreted what Math meant.
Based on his comment "If attempting to hit shots that look like 'real tennis' is causing an unduly high number of unforced errors, one should quickly adapt one's style of play…", I interpret that to mean if hitting with "proper" strokes is not cutting it, then do something else; stop the bleeding. Is it better to hit with "proper" strokes in the long-run? I think so. But if you're losing the match, is that the most relevant thing? I'd argue not. It's of very little consolation to lose when your partner is making double-digit error stats and he says, after the match, "Well, at least I was using proper technique."
Math: are these partners very dogmatic in their approach to tennis?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
In tennis terms, that statement is a short sitter which deserves crushing.
You could make zero mistakes and your opponent could still beat you if he hit enough winners.
Say your opponent has a great serve and is constantly hitting aces and the serves you can get your racquet on don't go in. Those would not be counted as "mistakes" [as in UEs]; at least, I don't think so.
And say you have a lollipop serve that your opponent winds up and crushes for more winners or forced errors.
Bingo: you've made no mistakes and you've lost the match.
Now, this, of course, is an extreme. The likelihood of occurrence [which you will probably bring up] is not the point: the point is to contradict another one of your sweeping generalizations. If you had merely stated "the player who makes fewer mistakes usually ends up winning", I would have agreed and thought nothing of it.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of pro matches and see how often the one who made fewer UEs [because "mistakes" are not tabulated] actually won. You'd have to account for difference in ranking, though: the better player is expected to win regardless of whether he makes more or less UEs [even if he makes more, he'll likely also make more winners; it's the differential between the two that's more important, not the absolute number of UEs].
MathGeek
Hall of Fame
An extreme version of pusher doubles is to play with both team members back. This strategy is best employed when the opposing baseline player tends to be overly aggressive and make lots of unforced errors and when the good guys can do a good job keeping it away from the opposing net player. If the baseline player is unable to sustain a 20 hit rally, it will be a war of attrition. A lot of doubles players cannot even effectively cover the whole width of the court from the baseline, and they tend to wear out quick with a bit of side to side action given the extra width.
Eventually, most doubles teams will come up with an effective counter strategy, but it is good for some points until they do.
Eventually, most doubles teams will come up with an effective counter strategy, but it is good for some points until they do.
OrangePower
Legend
How dare you!! That's just downright unmanly!!
Off topic but Is serve and volley more exhausting than counter punching
I am a CP
Exactly. Playing aggressive players help you learn to prepare early and build your defence. Pushers help with your consistency and tactics. Playing both types of opponents on a regular basis turn you into someone like Djokovic! With preparing earlier you become more consistent (you can then outlast the pusher). Becoming more consistent makes you generally outlast the aggressive player in a rally (aggressive players wont stand a chance and make more unforced errors). You then learn to choose when to become more aggressive and more containing. Its brilliant - dont compromise with your opponents - take the pushers, take the counter-punchers, take the aggressors - take them all! You can become a great player if you do not discriminate
tennis_ocd
Hall of Fame
One of the worst double's partners is one who tries to win points from the baseline or serve return. Very annoying.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
IMO, S&V takes more energy initially because you have to get to the net. But overall, I think it takes less energy. Most of my points are over in 4-5 shots: I rarely have a "rally" in the traditional sense unless I get lobbed and I have to retreat and the point starts all over again.
Now, if your serve/approach is poor, you will be expending A LOT of energy trying to half-volley stuff at your shoelaces and stretching out fully to reach the alley passers. If that happens, I'd consider staying back.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I tend to look at the tennis can as half-full [well, if the can held 4 balls] rather than half-empty: whomever I play and under whatever circumstances, I try to find the positive: what can I work on? How can I maximize the opportunity I have? Where the heck is my granola bar; I'm positive I put one in my bag!
tennis_ocd
Hall of Fame
I'm thinking there is a strong correlation between the ability to stretch this discussion to nearly ten pages with the mental strength needed to play pusher tennis.
Mongolmike
Hall of Fame
lol... yeah, seems like there is one stubborn thread "pusher" with weak arguments... he keeps lobbing things back and digging himself deeper and deeper into contradictions, falsehoods and lunacy.
Mongolmike
Hall of Fame
Hey, it could be really weird like the PuppyMonkeyBaby.
Wait. It IS kinda weird like the PuppyMonkeyBaby.
Huh.
Now I have an strange yearning for a beer. And I'm at work.
(Usually it's just a craving for another Gin and Tonic. Mmmm...Tanqueray Rangpur... tasty! )
Wait. It IS kinda weird like the PuppyMonkeyBaby.
Huh.
Now I have an strange yearning for a beer. And I'm at work.
(Usually it's just a craving for another Gin and Tonic. Mmmm...Tanqueray Rangpur... tasty! )
g4driver
Legend
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
That's a very interesting observation! Correlating a tennis style with a rhetorical style: why didn't I think of that?
Booger
Hall of Fame
He's not your regular garden variety pusher, he's king of pushers. His match against Simon was the best (worst?) matchup of pushers, maybe ever.
g4driver
Legend
Simon pushed because no one can out hit him in five sets. Simon knew that so Simon attempted to push him to a victory.
You made me laugh. Thanks. It was a long day. Appreciate it.
JackB1
G.O.A.T.
Agree. I'm just amazed that people keep feeding into it.
People who complain about pushers really lack the skill to beat them - it's all "fair play" in the end. I had trouble beating pushers before and remember not being happy about it. But I practiced the shots(i.e. approach shots, overheads, volleys, angled serves) that were weak and over time got the upper hand. Now it can be sort of fun to play a pusher and watch scramble all over the court!
edathompson2
Rookie
I ABSOLUTETLY LOVE playing a pusher. No putaways or hardly any pace. I get to practice constructing points, putaways, and my net game. Love it!
pfrischmann
Professional
Well said...I hate people saying "proper strokes". What does that mean? It's really all relative. By todays standards MCEnroe is a pusher. There are guys and ladies on the tour with hitches in their serve, slice forehands and backhands, yet they win. Ever see Serena Volley? It's hysterical. If you compared Brad Gilbert and Fabrice Santoro to Roger Federer, their strokes look pretty poor, however, I'm pretty sure they could both beat anyone on this board. When Rafa came on the scene, everyone made fun of his "ole" forehand...until he started winning. People still make fun of Gulbis's "soaring eagle forehand",yet he's been as high as 10th in the world...with that technique??? Is this any different than saying real players only use 85 Sq inch racquets.
The great thing about tennis is you get a racquet and a couple of balls and a pair of sneakers...the rest is up to you.. Strokes do not take the place of a good strategy and athleticism.
bobombom
Rookie
I read through this whole thread waiting for a response to this. Still nothing (unless I missed it). This thread has been extremely entertaining for me..but I've wasted too much time here..
Mongolmike
Hall of Fame
Don't hold your breathe. He's got nothing. He struggles with a "pushing" style, and he's gone all Kayne West over it.
I think what he means is "drama-tically "real"", like the Rocky movies are more "real" than real boxing. In the Rocky movies they are all trading only offenses, there's practically no defense. Real boxing, like everything real, is not necessarily dramatic, offense is dramatic, defense is not dramatic, therefore not "real".
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I disagree in the narrow sense that, by definition, a good offensive play means the point is over. A good defensive play, by contrast, means the point is still live. This can be exciting too. Although, in the context of this thread, I'm assuming "defense" means "getting the ball back into play a high % of the time", which, if I was doing it, would not be boring to me.
Last edited:
The point is over but the game is not over. Just like in boxing movies they are trading punches. They are not evading or blocking.
It's actually the opposite. In boxing a pusher would just hug his opponent instead of throwing punches.
It would be incredibly boring to watch a fight where one opponent didn't throw punches.
Play Bushido Blade with a friend, then tell me if "non-action" is boring.
You're getting in too deep in the metaphor. I didn't say there are no offense, I just say there are no defense. In boxing movies, there are no defenses, except when the "hero" uses it. Defense is not exciting, therefore not "real" to some people.
Let's go back to fighting. The mother of all fights, the Trojan War. You are Geek, you are amped up for the "Big One". You've been practicing the Decathlon in the Olympics, you got all the medals and you are "red-to-go". You sail to Troy and what do you face? The Walls of Troy. That's right, a wall. While you're trying to breach the wall, they shoot arrows down on you. And you sail back to Greece with an arrow in your ass complaining how that's "not a real fight", that's not man to man, face to face, or that was boring. But that's what happens in the Trojan WarS, capital S. That's what happens, not dramatic, not exciting, but absolutely real.
Personally no. I don't like the taste of my own medicine. A defensive player uses the energy of his opponent. I don't understand the advice of "hit the ball harder or faster" against a defensive player, that's playing into their game. You can of course win with brute force, like kicking down a door. But the better strategy is learning to pick a lock. You can beat me, but you have to exert twice the amount of energy I exert.
A defensive player is like a spider. Look at your racket, what does it look like? It looks like a spider's web. The genius of the spider's web is that it can absorb energy, the more you wriggle, the more energy you lose. What you call a "pusher", is actually a "puller", he pulls the energy from you, like a trampoline. Once I played against another defensive player. It was like 2 spiders caught in each other's web. Usually I pull the energy from my opponent, but this one is pulling my energy. We're like 2 spiders struggling against each other's web, but the web is draining our energy. I won 21-19 counting ping-pong. It was the most exhausting game I've ever played, more exhausting than one game I played when the score went 37-35.
I've never heard anybody speak without making sense.
"I will say i'm not a fan of the strategy at all."
That's fine. Everyone has a preference.
"The biggest problem with pushing as a strategy is that no one wants to play you."
2 assumptions:
1. "no one wants to play with you." That may or may not be true.
2. "no one wants to play you (is the biggest problem)". Not necessarily a problem. Just because you are different from other people is not YOUR problem. It can be THEIR problem depending on WHO HOLDS THE WHIP. I play chess, none of my friends play chess, that's not my problem, that's their problem.
Many of us enjoy the rhythm of a fast paced rally
Assumptions.
Who is us? Some like fast, some like it slow, some in between.
"the rhythm", why is there a "rhythm"? A game is dynamic, it can be slow or fast.
"fast paced rally and the opportunity to take control of a point with precise fast paced groundstrokes."
Fast and precise don't go together in a sentence. The faster something is done, the less precise it can be done.
"Pushers will have none of that."
What does that even mean? They don't have it, or they don't let you have it?
"So you get into a monotonous game of "who makes the first mistake"
Try sword fighting or sniper vs sniper fighting ala "Enemy at the Gates". The first to make a mistake DIES. How's that for "monotonous".
"Great for cardio but not for adrenalin or endorphins."
Are you a physician of some type?
"pushers care more about the final score than getting better at tennis."
What is getting better? Exactly. Is an M16 better than an AK47 because it can shoot further, more accurate? Always at a COST. Cost of cost, dollar wise. Cost of reliability. Because of cost of cost, cost in inferior numbers. Is a Lamborghini better that a Toyota Corolla? Better at what? Speed, sure. Looking "hot", sure. Cost, no. Durability, no.
"there is a deep seated dislike for them [because you] are inconsistent and can be beat"
Huh?
"They win without putting the time in to get better."
That sounds great already.
"They offer a game that does nothing to satisfy the soul."
Subjective and meaningless.
I play many satisfying games of chess against a soulless computer.
"I will only play them when I think I need some extra exercise."
What do they need from you?
Last edited:
